(23-01-2014 10:23 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote: @WillHop, I wasn't talking about you in particular, more a general thing. As for the choice, sure those individuals didn't get to choose, but that doesn't mean that their issues aren't as a result of someone else's choice. Obviously, medical science hasn't figured out every birth defect out there, yet, and what causes them, but we have certainly figured out a bunch of them. Many of them occur as a result of the actions of the mother during pregnancy and many others occur due to medical care at birth.

It's also worth mentioning that some kids born with "genetic disorders" end up living very happy fulfilling lives. I am a lawyer and I medical malpractice litigation, including obstetrical malpractice cases. A bunch of our files include cases of shoulder dystocia, essentially it is where the shoulder of the baby gets stuck during delivery (often because the baby is coming out sideways and gets stuck on the pubic bone). The cases I see usually involve a doctor who pulls too hard ripping the nerves in the brachial plexus (a bundle of nerves found in the shoulder). This results in a baby with little to no use of one arm. However, one of the things that you often see is that the baby grows up to be a happy kid. They don't miss the use of their arm because they never had it. If the right arm is injured, they just end up being left handed. Sure they have lost something due to the doctor's negligent actions, but that doesn't mean that they can't also be happy successful kids. So, not only can you explain their disability using the actions and choices of humans (eg. the doctor's mistake or choice of incorrect maneuver), but you also can't jump straight from disability to suffering.

I'm sorry if I have this wrong, but it seems to me you are inferring that our ignorance is a choice. That because we haven't figured out every reason a baby is born with defects is our own medical ignorance?

It sounds a lot like you are saying everything that happens to us is free will, like if an asteroid comes hurtling toward us and wipes out half of civilization it's our free will that caused it to happen because we haven't come up with a plan to detect and deflect said asteroid. That every hurricane that ravishes the islands or southeast U.S. is ultimately free will because we chose to spend time on a forum instead of inventing weather changing machinery to stop hurricanes from forming?

I would say you are guilty of shirking your "god's" responsibility or at the very least passing blame on us puny humans for your god's obvious inept creativity.

Recently I concluded a debate with a theist after we discussed birth defects and she spouted off very similar effluvium about these kids leading happy lives and being beautiful, etc. I truly tire of people vicariously answering for children who go through the pain (physically and mentally) of the most unfortunate defects as if they know what these poor children feel and think. And I never equated disability with suffering, don't put words in my mouth. Also, do some research on Harlequins ichthyosis and the mutation of the ABCA12 gene effects and get back to me.

While I would admit I don't know what they feel or think, either, the records show these existences are anything but pleasant. The stress to them and their families is well-documented. And to then say it's our free will that dictates the ultimate outcome because of the choices we unwittingly make through scientific or medical ignorance is beyond contempt.

How convenient for you and your god to be cleared of all charges with that one blanket statement. Shame on you and your creator.

Who says atheists are not open to the possibility that a god might exist? If we do not have the technology yet to affirm that he's there, we can only speculate. I'm always open to the possibility that a god might exist, as just like many things that are unproven, I do not ultimately rule them out because I find them exceedingly unlikely. I call this being open-minded and not myopic, to all possibilities, no matter how absurd they are. If you tell me invisible kangaroos might exist in the Universe because it hasn't been disproved, I can acknowledge they might, for what do I know? Though the possibility is so unlikely, I'm not so naive that I'd believe in something that has no substantial basis for it's existence.

Those scientists who wouldn't acknowledge black holes, or advanced quantum mechanics above like you mentioned, had quite reasonable reasons why for the primitive times there. Would you expect them to know something then that you could look back on and say is so apparently obvious? At the time, with the best tools available, they made their conclusion and it held its ground until there were improvements, advancements, etc. For the scientific method is always open to change and ideas, this is how we start understanding things more, because we accept new information. Science is ever more changing, and when scientists acknowledge it has room for improvement, it is able to improve and so it does just that.

Similarly, in our times, with the best technology at our fingertips, we concurrently make our conclusions to the best available tests we're able to conduct, as this is understandable. We may just be exactly like those scientists in the middle ages, not knowing something that will eventually become so obvious, people from the future might look back on and say how uninformed we were, similarly to how you've demonstrated in your example.

Right now, we can only agree with what the best research indicates. If a god or gods may exist, we wouldn't know. I have good reason not to believe a god exists, just like many brilliant freethinkers on the planet, as the best science available doesn't denote so.

If you don't like my use of the word God then that's fine. I have tried to use disclaimers because I know it is a loaded term with connotations that I am not trying to add. You are right, I am arguing from a deist perspective and you could simply substitute the word "creator" in any place that I used the word "God". I only use the term God because that is how I am used to hearing it used. For instance, when I was in my philosophy undergrad we learned about Spinoza's God, which doesn't resemble the Christian God in the least, but our professor still used the term God to describe it (likely because that's the term Spinoza used). So, that's a long way of saying yes, I am arguing deism not any particular God, and I did not intend to invoke any of the connotations you reference.

That having been said, I don't think that deism is an entirely useless theory. I suppose the fact that we are arguing about it would tend to support that. But, there is something to be said for the fact that once you get to the deist perspective you can then go further to figure out the attributes of the creator and look at those 'why' questions.

Think of it like reading a book and making assumptions about the author. You can come to some conclusions where the logic is pretty difficult to question, such as the fact that the author is fluent in English (assuming of course that the book is written in English), and other conclusions that may be logical, but are debatable (ie. you might impute someone's political views based on moral of the story being told). However, without the premise that the book had an author you can't make any of those subsequent steps.

The further question that you say is raised "why does the creator exist" is non-nonsensical. I do not mean this as an insult to you for raising it. I simply mean that the "what created the creator" issue, however stated, omits to consider a key aspect of the cosmological argument. The argument doesn't show that any particular God exists, it simply shows that a creator of some type exists. That creator has to have certain qualities to acts as a terminus to the infinite regress problem. The most important quality is that the creator needs to require no creator. How is that possible? I haven't the faintest clue. That question is definitely beyond me, but that would make sense, as it would be absurd to expect a finite individual like myself to understand an infinite creator. Nevertheless, the argument shows that such a creator has to exist. So, the creator, by definition, has to have required no creator. The subsequent question of "who created the creator" is nonsensical in the same way that it would be nonsensical to ask "why is the sky red"...it's not red, and the creator required by the cosmological argument wasn't created.

@TwoCultSurvivor, my argument was not "Nuh-uh". You quoted my introduction paragraph and seem to have completely ignored the rest of my post where I rephrased the issue into scientific terms for you, since you seem to prefer science to philosophy. There really wasn't anything else for me to respond to, as your initial post didn't actually raise any logical argument against the cosmological argument (ie. you didn't attack any of the premises, nor how you get from the premises to the conclusion), you simply said it is "philosophy", which isn't an answer, and that a supernatural explanation isn't necessary. Both of those are just semantic issues. You'd certainly have to explain to me why "it is philosophy" somehow invalidates a valid argument, and if you don't think a supernatural explanation is necessary then you'd better provide a better natural explanation. If not, then whether you call it "supernatural" or "natural" is irrelevant.

If you really think that the cosmological argument "invents an answer and demands that the answer be disproved" then I don't know how to explain things to you any further. You didn't seem to like philosophical terms, so I tried to translate for you. Beyond that, I think I just have to say that you don't seem to understand my argument.

@RobbyPants, as I mentioned above, the cosmological argument shows that a 'creator' is necessary. Cjlr didn't want me to refer to it as God, but the name is irrelevant, so I can refer to God as the 'creator fleem' if you would prefer. The real difference as I understand it between your fleems and God, is the idea of whether it is a single creator or multiple fleemish creators. To that, I would invoke occam's razor for the proposition that a single creator would make more sense than multiple creators. That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been multiple creators, just that it is more likely to have one 'causeless cause' than multiple.

As far as the issue that "no evidence of God exists" maybe this a communication issue like I seem to have had with cjrl. Like I mention above to him, the evidence that I have posted is in support of deism (ie. there is a creator of some kind). I'm not under the impression that the cosmological argument proves the existence of any particular God. It doesn't. It proves the existence of a creator. If you don't agree that there is evidence for the existence of a creator, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree, because imho the existence of anything at all is evidence of the existence of such a creator based on the logic of the cosmological argument.

@WillHop, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The comment about the 'birth defects for which we don't know the cause' was simply to say that I wasn't going to comment on them. Obviously, if we don't know what caused them it wouldn't make much sense for me to use them as evidence either way. It was a throwaway disclaimer, nothing more, just limiting my comments to defects where the causes are generally known and accepted by medical science. I certainly did not mean those comments in the way that you took them.

I certainly don't blame humans for omissions such as failing to come up with solutions for diseases or failing to change the weather. However, on the other side of the coin, there are certainly some things that humans have done through our own actions (not omissions) that have caused unintended suffering due to our ignorance. We know about global warming and what causes it now, but we had been causing it a lot longer than we were aware of it. People smoked for years before we found out about the negative side effects. Those are kinds of suffering that I attribute to free will and ignorance.

It isn't that people necessarily choose for themselves or others to suffer. That is too simplistic a view. But, in a world where we have free will some people are going to cause suffering to others on purpose and some will do so by accident. If God gives a human a hammer, the human is responsible for how he uses it. If he uses it to make a house, great. If he uses it to hit someone else over the head, then that's not so great, but also the human's fault, not God's. If he uses it to make a crappy house that ends up collapsing on him, that's not great either, but the human is to blame, not God.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: If you don't like my use of the word God then that's fine. I have tried to use disclaimers because I know it is a loaded term with connotations that I am not trying to add. You are right, I am arguing from a deist perspective and you could simply substitute the word "creator" in any place that I used the word "God". I only use the term God because that is how I am used to hearing it used. For instance, when I was in my philosophy undergrad we learned about Spinoza's God, which doesn't resemble the Christian God in the least, but our professor still used the term God to describe it (likely because that's the term Spinoza used). So, that's a long way of saying yes, I am arguing deism not any particular God, and I did not intend to invoke any of the connotations you reference.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: That having been said, I don't think that deism is an entirely useless theory. I suppose the fact that we are arguing about it would tend to support that. But, there is something to be said for the fact that once you get to the deist perspective you can then go further to figure out the attributes of the creator and look at those 'why' questions.

Sure.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: Think of it like reading a book and making assumptions about the author. You can come to some conclusions where the logic is pretty difficult to question, such as the fact that the author is fluent in English (assuming of course that the book is written in English), and other conclusions that may be logical, but are debatable (ie. you might impute someone's political views based on moral of the story being told). However, without the premise that the book had an author you can't make any of those subsequent steps.

That doesn't follow. Literary analysis presupposes the existence of literature. There are no counterexamples to the universe.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: The further question that you say is raised "why does the creator exist" is non-nonsensical. I do not mean this as an insult to you for raising it. I simply mean that the "what created the creator" issue, however stated, omits to consider a key aspect of the cosmological argument. The argument doesn't show that any particular God exists, it simply shows that a creator of some type exists. That creator has to have certain qualities to acts as a terminus to the infinite regress problem. The most important quality is that the creator needs to require no creator. How is that possible? I haven't the faintest clue.

You might as well have said turtles.

You are merely asserting - by fiat - that the universe cannot exist of its own accord; you are merely asserting - by fiat - that the universe requires a creator; you are merely asserting - by fiat - that the creator can exist of its own accord.

Exactly none of these are warranted assumptions; being as they are untestable, that doesn't particularly matter so far as purely philosophical considerations go, but the gist of the thread is to take a scientific view.

Even if we grant all three wild assumptions, there is still no predictive utility to be had. Thus, useless.

In fact, it's worse than that. Faced with a particular question - let's say, why the strength of electromagnetic interaction has the magnitude it does - we now have an answer - "it was made that way". That answer tells us nothing. The only responsible answer is "it was made that way, but we'll keep looking into it regardless", because there is necessarily a means by which it occurs (aka what we're really studying in any case), and we have, by asserting a creator, additionally conjured up a teleological component, since a creator would necessarily have acted for a reason.

Thus even making for the allowance that it might well be testable at some point - going in with such assumptions makes no difference. Hence: useless.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: That question is definitely beyond me, but that would make sense, as it would be absurd to expect a finite individual like myself to understand an infinite creator.

Any more so than to understand an infinite universe?

That's intellectually lazy buck-passing. You can do better than that.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: Nevertheless, the argument shows that such a creator has to exist.

No, it merely asserts as much.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: So, the creator, by definition, has to have required no creator.

Again, it merely asserts as much.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: The subsequent question of "who created the creator" is nonsensical in the same way that it would be nonsensical to ask "why is the sky red"...it's not red, and the creator required by the cosmological argument wasn't created.

No. Give it a real think. What justification is there for the premises of deism? Ignorance and wishful thinking - at best.

"Why does the universe require a creator but a creator does not?" is a valid question.
"Because that's how I defined them and never you mind" is a dogshit answer.

(23-01-2014 04:47 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: As far as the issue that "no evidence of God exists" maybe this a communication issue like I seem to have had with cjrl. Like I mention above to him, the evidence that I have posted is in support of deism (ie. there is a creator of some kind). I'm not under the impression that the cosmological argument proves the existence of any particular God. It doesn't. It proves the existence of a creator. If you don't agree that there is evidence for the existence of a creator, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree, because imho the existence of anything at all is evidence of the existence of such a creator based on the logic of the cosmological argument.

It proves the existence of a creator if one grants its arbitrary premises.

It is merely defining ones way out of a question. It is not an answer. There is no real explanation occurring. There is no predictive utility.

OK, lookingforanswers, I'll let it go, though it seems you back-pedaled a little there.

But I think I'll throw my hat in the ring on the cosmological argument for a bit. You say it proves there was a creator. First, it proves nothing, as these are philosophical postulates and not scientific. But, I'll leave semantics aside.

Even if we agree a first cause exists, why is it a creator and why do you get to special plead your way to this creator just existing? You brought up Occam's Razor, so I will, too. Isn't it far more simple and likely to believe something as simple as a particle just existed to trigger the Big Bang? Think about how much more infinitely difficult it is to explain away a creator that came from nothing and created everything. When you will inevitably say some non-answer such as, "Our finite minds can't comprehend an infinite creator who has qualities to act as a terminus to the infinite regress," I would counter with, "Why can't our finite human minds not comprehend a simple particle that has the same quality?" If a creator can have no cause, why not this particle or an entire universe?

If you want to counter by saying the particle needs a cause, I will tell you that you have asserted, through special pleading, a creator that doesn't need a first cause, so if you can have your exceptions I can have mine. The difference? Mine is rooted in falsifiable science (see quantum physics, timeless light particles) and is simple, while yours is rooted in gap theory and wishful thinking.

@cjlr, you are going to have to help me with this statement, "That doesn't follow. Literary analysis presupposes the existence of literature. There are no counterexamples to the universe." I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

I don't agree that the gist of the thread is to take a scientific view. I mean, yeah, that's where I started 8 pages ago, but no one has discussed my original question for many pages, lol.

You come back to "predictive utility" a fair amount. IMHO you are focusing too much on the scientific perspective. From a scientific perspective, you may very well be right. The existence of a creator may not be predictive with respect to other things at all. You probably have to go much farther along the train of thought to determine that for sure (ie. if you get to the point of a creator who created the universe purposefully what are the implications of that?). While the question may end up having no scientific predictive utility, it does have philosophical utility when considering other questions like morality which are outside of the realm of science.

I guess the bigger question that I would have for you is: if the answer to the question of "whether a creator exists" is a useless question from your perspective, why have you taken so much time out of your life arguing about it with me? Why bother being on an atheist website at all? Shouldn't you be on a scientific website discussing things that have predictive utility? While your point may be correct, your actions seem to betray that you don't believe it.

With respect to "asserting", I'm not sure I understand why you keep insisting that the argument "asserts" a creator's existence instead of "showing", "demonstrating" or "proving" a creator's existence. I looked it up to be sure, but "asserting" merely means to state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully. If I just wanted to assert something I wouldn't need an argument at all. If you disagree with the argument then focus on the argument, I'm not sure why the language is important.

As for the existence of an infinite universe, I'm pretty sure I've already responded to that multiple times (either on this thread or the other one). You can also take a listen to the William Lane Craig video I referenced as it explains the problems with the infinite universe theory better than I can.

And, "Why does the universe require a creator but a creator does not?" is not a valid question. You still don't seem to have understood my point on that one. I'm not sure I can explain it to you, but I'll try one more time.

I get that you don't agree with the cosmological argument, but imagine that it is correct (because we can't discuss the attributes of a creator if we don't at least assume the existence of one for argument's sake). A simple form of the argument can be stated as follows:

Part #1
Premise #1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise #2. The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe had to have a cause

Part #2
Premise #1. The universe had to have a cause
Premise #2. An infinite regress of causes and effects is impossible
Therefore, there had to be a first cause which did not require a cause.

Now, there are other forms of the argument, but let's deal with this one. If you want to attack this argument you can either disagree with one of the premises or the logic in moving from the premises to the conclusion. Now, you can question any of the premises here, but the logic in moving from each of those premises to the conclusion seems pretty impossible to question.

So, if the argument concludes with the existence of a "first cause" then the question of "what caused the first cause" becomes nonsensical. The fact that "a creator doesn't need a creator" is not a premise of the argument. The conclusion of the argument is that a "first cause" is necessary. Now, the analysis to this point of the argument only establishes the existence of a "first cause" with the only known qualities being that the "first cause" created the universe in some manner and does not require a cause in and of itself.

We can go on further in the analysis to see what other qualities the "first cause" may have, but for the purpose of what we were discussing that's as far as I need to go. Asking "what caused the first cause" is nonsensical because the "first cause" doesn't require a cause...if it did it wouldn't be a "first cause". If you then want to say "well how do we know there was a first cause" I would refer you back to the premises and conclusion up above. You can go after the argument by trying to knock out any of the premises it stands upon, but if you get to the point where you are talking about a "first cause" or a "creator" then the question just doesn't make any sense. You can wonder about how it is possible for such a first cause to exist, but if you accept the premises and the logic then you can't argue that a first cause doesn't exist.

I would also go back to your "utility" point and ask you: If we establish that a "first cause" creator does exist, what is the utility of asking the question "why it exists?". The questions of "why" and "how" don't really change anything about the creator, nor do they have any predictive quality. Just some food for thought.

@WillHop, I think I answered some of your post above, including the special pleading stuff.

Also, when I say I can't comprehend the nature of a creator God it isn't to say that I don't think I can know some aspects about one. I don't understand for the life of me the inner workings of a cell phone, but I do know how to use one. In a similar way, I don't claim to be able to understand everything about an infinite creator being, but I do believe that I understand some things (hopefully enough).

With respect to your "uncaused particle" it would fit the "first cause" definition above. So, let's continue the analysis and see where we get. What sort of attributes would the "first cause" have?

First of all, the first cause would have to be immaterial, or be able to exist in an immaterial state in the sense that we understand materiality to mean. In that sense, material things are a part of this universe, but a creator must be able to exist outside the universe because he/it created the universe.

Also, the creator is uncaused and therefore must have existed for an infinite amount of time before the existence of the universe (if the concept of time actually makes sense before the existence of the universe). The universe was created a finite time ago, so the question becomes: What changed such that the "first cause" created the universe? The "first cause" was there for infinity before creating the universe, so what changed to cause it to create the universe? The answer seems to have to be that the "first cause" is a "free agent", in other words, something that could choose to create or not create. If the "first cause" was not a free agent then there is no reason for it to have created the universe a finite time ago, as opposed to creating the universe an infinite number of different finite times ago.

The problem with "non-agent creation" is that it doesn't solve the infinite regress problem. If the creator is a particle or any other sort of non-agent, then there is no explanation for why it would be sitting there for an infinite amount of time and then spontaneously create a universe. You would need something to change, essentially requiring another cause...not a cause to create the "first cause" but a cause for the "first cause" to act and create the universe. The "agency" solution solves this problem because an "agent" can spontaneously decide to do something at any time.

At this point, you may also be able to see how Occam's Razor would then come into play. If your "first cause" requires another cause to create the universe, then where did that cause come from? Was it also eternal? In which case, why did it cause the first cause to do something at a spontaneous point in time. What was the cause of that? It creates another infinite regress. Occam's Razor isn't about limiting qualitative complexity, it is about limiting numerical complexity. So, it is a good reason to prefer the solution of one eternal first cause as opposed to multiple first causes, but it is not a good reason to reject the idea of a singular first cause that happens to have details that seem to be complex. Also, for Occam's Razor to work you have to have an alternate theory that is just as good.

Once again, just because he/it is an "agent" and can make spontaneous decisions does not necessarily mean that he/it has the qualities which any modern religion ascribes to him/it. But, I do think that this analysis is the only logical explanation to the problem. If you disagree, feel free to put forward a different hypothesis.

So if you were talking about one of the gods of one of the many religions, then that one is easy, since they all make clearly falsifiable claims about their deity. Proof of their existence won't come. Humans have had gods since our beginnings.

But you seem to be talking of the general "creative force" type of deity with no personal involvement in individual lives or the outcome of mankind. In that case - sure, maybe some sort of way to detect or prove the existence of said being may come about, but it doesn't really matter now, since we don't have it, and in any foreseeable future, won't. It would be interesting, and could lead to further explanations of origin if it were to happen, but for the here and now, I'll worry about what we do know and are on the verge of discovering. And god is not a necessary hypothesis for what we know now.